Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreenTengu" data-source="post: 6769114" data-attributes="member: 6777454">If that were the case, there wouldn't be a necessity to pull words from a language that the over-whelming majority of the dialogue, description and character come from. Nor would you feel it was necessary to name them after a real world culture or dress them in relative strict accordance with a real world culture. It may be "imaginary", but it is clearly based on something real.So when you take a word that is used to describe a group of real life people and then you assign it a stereotype about those people and insist that all people in that world who are described with that word follow that stereotype precisely (or simply assign them massive bonuses for adhering to your stereotype), it becomes very ugly. You might not be able to see it from your point of view, you might have gone into it thinking you were a fan of the culture-- but once you decide to box in their concept so that there isn't nearly the wide breadth of character or personality that you would display if you were doing the similar group from your own culture, and then you stack on top of that really dehumanizing their behavior (even if you hold it up as some concept such as 'honor'), you end up with something really twisted and sick that just fetishizes another culture.And, honestly? The old setting book of Kara-tur really was lacking any sort of real creativity or unification of the setting. They sort of just took half a dozen east Asian cultures (often the same one from different time periods) and sort of haphazardly tossed them next to one another as separate realms whose politics and development inexplicably didn't affect the others. The setting coming together more as a setting rather than a bunch of disjointed, smashed together places out of time created based on how little the designer knew about them. More creativity would probably be welcome.But saying all Samurai are universally suicidal iajutsu masters who fight to the death over the slightest perceived insult and kill themselves whenever they make the slightest mistake (not what was written, but the fact that Rokugan was what the 3rd edition version was based on, a well  supported slippery slop) is not a good place to start from. Particularly since they are meant to be a common, functional part of society within the setting.Except that what I originally quoted was him writing that samurai were lightly armored duelists who wielded two swords.And after slowly coming to realize what an utter insulting cock-up settings like Rokugan really are at their core, I find myself driven to speak up when I see people going down the exact same road.Really, what can a samurai be?Well, a warrior who is particularly adherent to a code of behavior and their fanatical adherence to that code inspires those around them to greatness, allows them to charge straight into the face of danger and deliver devastating single strikes to their enemies. i.e. a Paladin.Or they are brilliant-minded tacticians and inspirers of legions of men who lead them into battle, their force being represented by their ability to lead their legion of men rather than the force of their own two hands and outside battle focus on skills to manage and run the territory they have been assigned and navigate the hazards of the court and public relations. I.e. a Warlord.Or maybe they are heavily armored tanks that can stomp their way through the battlefield, masters of arms who cannot be bested and will use whatever means are necessary to achieve their missions. i.e. a Fighter.Or they are fast, mobile but still somewhat armored warrior who fights from horseback with unparalleled skill with a bow and can ambidextrously use a pair of swords in close combat. i.e. a Ranger.Or maybe they are highly cultured poets and artists for whom swordplay is more a work of art than simply brute force and whose brilliant performances and awe-striking appearance and words makes them a natural leader inspiring those by their side to their best. i.e. a Bard.And, yes, the guy who wears no armor and focuses solely on their skill with a sword and live and die solely by their ability to prove their claims that they are the greatest. They devote themselves solely to mastering their technique and are constantly seeking out new challenges and opponents. i.e. the Kensai. (Which, fair enough, may need to be its own class) Of course, they are likely to be moneyless travelers who work for no one and thus Ronin and not true samurai. All those ideas one would build about being a "samurai" being this iajutsu dueling thing is solely the kensai. No other version is quite as concerned about that. Maybe the Paladin-archetype a bit, but "Smite" is a pretty good stand-in for that sort of sword style.Certainly the two-sword wielders aren't worried about striking first and hardest or else they wouldn't be using two swords and most others would be quite content to shoot you with an arrow, run you through with a polearm, trample you with a horse, shoot you with a musket or what have you. Even trap you and your whole family inside a wooden fortress and light it on fire.The more posts I see, the more I wonder if we really weren't on the same page and perhaps I did jump on something I saw as something it wasn't meant to be.If the idea wasn't to pigeon-hole the Japanese culture and use the term "samurai" and stereotypes about it in western media to artificially limit the range of humanity and character concepts allowed in the setting, then I apologize for jumping all over it unnecessarily so.</blockquote>

Verification